1999
Mahatma Gandhi Lecture on Nonviolence,

Centre for
Peace Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

CANADA AND A CULTURE OF PEACE

Senator Douglas Roche, O.C.University of Alberta

Presented at McMaster University, Canada, February 1, 2000.

It is an honour to give the Mahatma
Gandhi Lecture on Nonviolence. In my recent book, Bread Not Bombs: A
Political Agenda for Social Justice, I cited Gandhi as the greatest figure of
the 20th Century. Time Magazine did not agree with me, selecting Albert
Einstein as the "Person of the Century." The Mahatma was a runner‑up. If the
20th century is to be measured by the global burst in scientific knowledge,
then I suppose Einstein is the logical choice. But we cannot deny that the
20th century was a time of the discovery of the universality of human rights
and the role of nonviolence in achieving political gains. Here Gandhi infused
the human spirit with hope. Einstein made our bodies more comfortable; Gandhi
raised up our souls. The technology inspired by Einstein had both good and
bad effects. The humility lived by Gandhi taught us the qualities of
tolerance and pluralism, virtues that will be essential for civilization to
survive the 21st century. Robert Payne, in his great biography of Gandhi
said: "He had a mind of great originality and daring, and perhaps never before
on so proud a scale has any man succeeded in shaping the course of history
while using only the weapons of peace."

A. The Culture of
War

To speak of a culture of peace, it is
necessary first to recall the culture of war, which blighted the 20th century.

The 20th century was the bloodiest
century in the history of humanity, with more than 110 million people killed
in wars, three times as many people than all the war deaths in all the
previous centuries from, the first century A.D.

The killing record was maintained
throughout the 1990s, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Haiti, The
Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sri
Lanka. These are just some of the countries from virtually all the regions of
the world whose hopes for growth and prosperity were stifled by chronic
conflicts.

The Gulf War in 1991 claimed more than
100,000 lives, cost $60 billion, and caused immense human suffering. More
than 800,000 people were slaughtered in internecine warfare in Rwanda. NATO's
bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, in response to atrocities and ethnic cleansing
carried out by the Serbs, left a trail of destruction that will disrupt life
into the next generation. While wars are being fought, consuming vast amounts
of resources, the world’s poorest people are falling farther behind. During
the past decade, inequalities have worsened throughout Asia, and poverty has
skyrocketed in a crumbling Russia. Africa is in constant crisis. Housing,
health, and education services are desperately needed throughout the
developing countries. Yet the 20 percent of the world's people who live in
the high‑income countries account for 86 percent of the total private
consumption expenditures. In latter years, the gap between the rich and poor
has widened enormously.

Gross disparities and misplaced
priorities at home and abroad are staring us in the face. Social justice in a
world of plenty seems father off than ever. The double standards of politics
reveal an intellectual corruption aided and abetted by a corporate ‑
controlled media. There is an anger inside me as I see what is and what ought
to be.

We fight wars that should not be
fought. We maintain nuclear weapons that constantly endanger humanity. We
spend money on excessive militarism at the expense of the poor. The way in
which the public is manipulated into believing that militarism buys peace is
the greatest intellectual insult of all.

B. The Culture of
Peace

There ‑ I have gotten the bad news out
of the way, and it is still early in the lecture. There is much more to be
said about the insidiousness of the war culture. But I think that those who
attend a lecture in Gandhi's name already know these blights on the human
condition and want to raise their sights.

My own hope that we can get beyond the
culture of war lies in the blossoming of intelligence about ourselves as a
human community in a world that is inter‑connected in every sphere of
activity. Despite the news of wars, hunger, homelessness and disease
affecting millions, the world is in fact moving toward a new, more
participatory, people‑centred way of conducting international affairs. The
potential power of this movement can create the conditions for a culture of
peace.

It is often said that war is
inevitable, it is part of our human nature, and people have been fighting
throughout history. This is a superficial analysis. Human beings are not
genetically programmed for war. There is no inherent biological component of
our nature that produces violence. UNESCO points out that war begins in our
minds; so too must) the new ideas begin in our minds: that peace is absolutely
necessary in a technological age of mass destruction.

The present pessimism must be lifted
by the recognition that war is not inevitable. Violence on the scale of what
we have seen in Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo and elsewhere does not
emerge inexorably from human interaction. Because the hatred and incitement
to violence fostered by social and economic inequality, combine with the
readily available supply of deadly weapons, are so evident, it is' essential
and urgent to find ways to prevent disputes from turning massively violent.
The real problem here is not that we do not know about incipient and
large‑scale violence, it is that we often do not know how to act. Either we
ignore mass killings if the area concerned is not central to our interests,
or, as in the case of Kosovo, we unleash a rain of destruction in the name of
saving humanity.

Examples from "hot spots" around the
world illustrate that the potential for violence can be diffused through the
early, skillful, and integrated application of political, diplomatic,
economic, and military measures. Though terrible suffering occurred, it is a
fact that warring parties have put down their arms in El Salvador, Namibia,
Mozambique, South Africa, Guatemala, and the Philippines. The peace accords
in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, though precarious, illustrate peace
can overcome histories of conflict. Sine 1945, the U.N. has negotiated 172
peaceful settlements that ha have ended regional conflicts, including an end
to the Iran‑Iraq war and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

These lessons have taught us that
violence and war are not inevitable. An unavoidable clash of civilizations is
not our fate. War and mass violence usually result from deliberate political
decisions s. Rather than intervening in violent conflicts after they have
erupted and t en engaging in post‑conflict peace‑building, it is more humane
and more efficient to prevent such violence in the first place by addressing
its roots. This is the essence of a that the human desire for 1945, the U.N.
has actually culture of peace approach.

The continuing work of UNESCO, in pro
promoting knowledge of a culture of peace, is inspiring. Responding to a
request by the U.N. General Assembly to develop the concept of a culture of
peace as an integral approach to preventing violence and armed inflicts,
UNESCO succeeding in defining norms, values and aims of peace. A culture of
peace is the set of values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behaviour, and
ways of life that reflect and inspire respect for life and for all human
rights. It involves the rejection of violence in all its forms, and
commitment to the prevention of violent conflicts by tackling their root
causes through dialogue and negotiation.

A peace
consciousness does not appear overnight. It is evident that constructing a
culture of peace requires comprehensive, educational, social and civic
action. It addresses people of all ages. An open‑minded, global strategy is
required to make a culture of peace take root in people's hearts and minds.

The U.N. General
Assembly has helped to faster this ethical transformation by proclaiming the
year 2000 a the International Year for the Culture of Peace, to be followed by
the International Decade (2001‑2010) for "a Culture of Peace and Non-violence
e for the Children of the World." Mobilizing public opinion and developing new
education programs at all levels are essential to promote humanity's rejection
of war. Instead of planning to fight war, nations should put their full
strength behind the efforts of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
recently stressed the need for a culture of peace in these words:

"It may seem sometimes as if a culture
of e ace does not stand a chance against the culture of war, the culture of
violence and the cultures of impunity and intolerance. Peace may indeed be a
complex challenge, dependent on action in many fields and even a bit of luck
from time to time. It may be a painfully slow
process, and fragile and imperfect when it is achieved But peace is in our
hands. We can do it.

C. The Hague Appeal for Peace

The "can‑do‑it"
attitude was powerfully shown at the 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace where 7,000
people of 100 nationalities gathered for a four‑day "jamboree" of seminars,
exhibits, concerts and a general outpouring of human yearning for peace.

The new Hague
Appeal challenges the assumption of today's skeptics who have given up on the
essential U.N. idea that succeeding generations can be saved from the scourge
of war. The Hague Appeal launched a citizens' "Agenda for Peace and Justice
in the 21st Century," in which citizen advocates, progressive governments, and
official agencies work together for common goals.

To build a
culture of peace, the Hague Appeal has highlighted these themes:

* Traditional
Failure: Move beyond the traditional approaches to preventing war, which have
failed disastrously. Big‑power bullying tactics are not diplomacy. Sanctions
that starve the poor are not solidarity. Fire‑brigade peacekeeping efforts
are no substitute for early warning systems.

* Human Security:
Security must be redefined in terms of human and ecological needs instead of
national sovereign y and national borders. This requires new priorities for
sustainable development instead of armaments.

* All Human
Rights for All Peace: The violation of human rights is one of the root causes
of war. These violations include the denial of economic, social and cultural
rights as well as political and civil rights. The artificial distinction
between these two sets of rights can no longer be tolerated.

* Soft Power:
Civil society and progressive governments are choosing "soft power" paths,
utilizing negotiation, coalition building and new diplomacy methods of
settling disputes, while rejecting the "hard power" dictates of major powers,
including militaries and economic conglomerates.

* Rule of Law:
Universal adherence to international law must be developed. Current
instruments, such as the Imitational Court of Justice and the new
International Criminal Court, must be invigorated.

* Initiatives in
Peace‑Making: Too often, peace initiatives are proposed only as a last resort
and negotiations restricted to disputants. Civil society should also convene
peace initiatives before a crisis gets out of control and lives are lost.

* Democratic
Decision‑Making: In recent years, the U.N. system, created to be a universal
force for peace, has been treated with cynicism, politicized and
under-funded. The international system must be revived, democratized and
provided with resources if it is to realize its potential in peace‑building.
The U.N. Security Council must serve human security rather than Great Power
interests.

* Humanitarian
Intervention: Speedy and effective intervention of military forces, mandated
by the Security Council, are required where civilians are threatened by
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and extreme national
disasters. A standing U.N. intervention force must be established.

* Money for
Peace: Billions are spent on arms and militarization, while worthwhile peace
initiatives and programs for human security are starved from lack of funds.
These priorities must be reversed. Strengthened by these powerful themes, the
Hague Appeal for Peace launched specific campaigns to reduce the trade in
small arms, obtain universal ratification of the Landmines Treaty, boost the
International Criminal Court, seek an unequivocal commitment from the Nuclear
Weapons States to begin comprehensive negotiations for the elimination of
nuclear weapons, start a phased campaign to reduce military establishments
over a period of years, promote a worldwide coalition of peace forces for
humanitarian intervention, stop the recruitment and use of children under 18
in hostilities, and campaign to make universal 1 peace education compulsory in
primary and secondary schools and in teacher education.

D. UNESCO's Intellectual Resources

In this academic
setting, we should note the resources that UNESCO has provided to deepen our
understanding of the ways to develop a Culture of Peace.

* UNESCO's
International Commission on Education for the Twenty‑First Century recommended
an agenda for renewal of education systems. It identified "four pillars of
education."

‑ Learning to
know: that is, developing the critical faculties and learning skills required
to continue learnmg throughout one's life. ‑ Learning to do: acquiring
productive skills, especially those needed to earn a living.

‑ Learning to
live together: developing civic values and the capacity for understanding,
teamwork, and respect I for others. ‑ Learning to be: the overall development
of the human person, both mind and body, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic
sense, personal responsibility, and spiritual values.

* The World
Commission on Culture and Development, chaired by former U.N.
Secretary‑General Javier Perez de Cuellar called for the recognition of a
common set of shared principles that would allow cultural diversity to
flourish. A system of global ethics, it said in its report, Our Creative
Diversity, must rest on certain pillars:

‑ Human rights
and responsibilities.

‑ The protection
of minorities.

‑
Intergenerational equity, that is, ensuring that future generations are not
disadvantaged by our present actions.

‑ A commitment to
conflict resolution by non‑military means.

‑ Democracy and
civil society.

* In 1997, UNESCO
created the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and
Technology (COMEST). The creation of this new commission reflects the
increasing importance of ethical reflection in the light of the cultural and
social effects of the rapid development of scientific knowledge and
technology. Its mandate is:

‑ To serve as an
intellectual forum for the exchange of ideas and experience.

‑ To detect, on
that basis, the early signs of risk situations.

‑ To fulfill an
advisory role for decision‑makers in this respect.

‑ To promote
dialogue between scientific communities, decision‑makers and the public at
large.

As with other
commissions, the main working method of the World Commission on the Ethics of
Scientific Knowledge and Technology is to hold hearings in all regions of the
world and to invite presentations from a broad range of organizations and
individuals. The first session, held in Oslo, Norway in 1999, gave a flavour
of the work it will undertake over the months to come. Three round table
discussions; open to the public, began the dialogue on ethics and energy,
ethics and freshwater resources, and protection of the rights and freedoms of
scientists. There was also an exchange of views on ethics and the information
society. The Oslo session was a prelude to UNESCO's World Conference on
Science, which focuses on ethical issues in the relationship between science
and society.

E. The Role of Canada

In the diplomatic
realm, Canada has used its current position as a member of the U.N. Security
Council to advance a "soft‑power" agenda, which lays a political base for a
culture of peace.

Canada has
promoted a thematic approach to human security on the Security Council and, in
particular, initiated a major effort to protect civilians in violent
conflict. Canada has sought operational entry points for advancing the human
security agenda in the Council, culminating in taking its turn on the
Council's rotating presidency to launch a major human security initiative on
how to improve the protection of civilians in violent conflict.

Highlighting
Canada's initiative was a report from the Secretary‑General with far‑reaching
recommendations. These include: strengthening international legal norms and
addressing gaps to protect civilians; practical measures to prevent conflict
such as preventive peace deployments and a rapid reaction capability;
peacekeeping mandates to protect civilians; targeted sanctions which minimize
the humanitarian toll. Canada now chairs a working group on the Council with
a mandate to promote these recommendations through expanded Council activity.
9

Canada's time on
the Security Council comes at an historic juncture in world affairs. It is
encouraging to see that Canada is working to fashion a Security Council that
increasingly focuses on the human dimension of security and alleviate the
unprecedented civilian toll of modern conflict. There has already been some
progress in interpreting what constitutes a security threat to international
peace and stability, as demonstrated in the inclusion of intra‑state issues.
This change is nothing short of revolutionary and is testament to human
progress in justice and obligation toward our common humanity.

The Security Council and the United
Nations Charter were designed at a time when wars were primarily fought across
borders. In today's world 90 percent of the wars are inside borders. They are
e a variety of ethnic, cultural and economic conflicts of warlords; militias and
governments that repress their own people. Such events have fundamentally
changed the nature of the security problem that we face. The Security Council,
through the changes suggested by Canada, remains the most appropriate way to
meet new challenges.

To build a culture
for peace, Canada must develop and extend policies that promote human security,
new coalition's and negotiations, the rule of law, initiatives at peacemaking,
democratic decision‑making, and humanitarian intervention mandated by the
Security Council. Finally, Canada must work for a reversal of present global
global policies in which billions of dollars are spent on arms and
militarization while worthwhile development initiatives and programs for peace
and human security are starved for lack of funds.

F. The Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

There is one
over‑arching impediment to peace that Canada must now turn its attention to:
nuclear weapons. The maintenance of nuclear weapons into the 21st
century is incompatible with a culture of peace. Nuclear weapons fly in the
face of a just world order. They are representative of an intellectual and
diplomatic paralysis. Nuclear weapons, by holding the world hostage as they do,
are the pinnacle of organized violence. The movement to abolish nuclear weapons
is growing. The 1995 indefinite extension of the NPT is a cornerstone in
building a new and long sought‑after architecture for the world. The process
underscored that all 187 NPT signatories have a role to play in making the world
free of nuclear weapons. A new fusion of efforts by like‑minded governments and
the advanced wave of civil society can create enormous world pressure that the
Nuclear Weapons States will not be able to ignore. The campaign for abolition
cannot, however, operate alone. It must be part of an organized movement to
prevent war and build a culture of peace. Fortunately, there are many such
movements embracing diplomatic and civil society initiatives. New techniques of
early warning of incipient conflict, preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, and
peace‑building are available. Regional organizations, such as the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, are in place to strengthen the U.N.
system. The fullness of this system is providing the basis for an expanding
body of international law, which could, in time, support a Nuclear Weapons
Convention prohibiting the production and deployment of nuclear weapons. The
system must be nourished so that it matures into a credible and reliable force
for peace.

Canada could make a
great contribution to the International Year of Peace by working with
like‑minded states at the 2000 Review Conference of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty
to secure from the Nuclear Weapons States an unequivocal commitment to commence
negotiations leading to a program of nuclear disarmament.

* * * *

As we start the new
century, the potential for a culture of peace has never been higher. Though we
are still bogged down in: the remnants of a culture of war, we must summon the
strength, the courage, and the endurance to share in the development of God's
planet. The political will of governments and civil society will be the
determining factor. We must seize this moment to push the decision‑makers and
social actors everywhere to reorder their priorities, to set an ethical basis
for future action, and to empower citizens to speak up and to act.